Ripples in an Election

By R. W. APPLE Jr.,

Published: November 5, 1993

WASHINGTON, Nov. 4—
The elections on Tuesday were not about President Clinton, and certainly not about the North American Free Trade Agreement. But some in Washington think the results will make it harder for President Clinton to prevail when the North American Free Trade Agreement comes up for a decisive vote in about two weeks.

"Clearly Nafta has long-term advantages," said Representative Robert G. Torricelli of New Jersey, one of the small band of Democrats still undecided on the issue. "But I have to balance that against the short-term economic pain I would be asking some of the workers in my district to accept. The election showed how high people's anxieties about jobs are, in addition to higher taxes, at least in my state, so it strengthened my reservations about Nafta."

The White House argued that there was no connection at all. The whole proposition, Mr. Clinton said, was "ludicrous." He asserted that the real lesson of the election was that "if people think you're for change, you get elected," and in this case, he said, the trade agreement constitutes change. Some of the fence-sitters agreed, like Representative Nita M. Lowey of Westchester. Lowey Says It's Up to Her

"It's irrelevant," she said. "It's not up to the President to tell me to take the tough vote and he'll protect me, it's up to me to decide."

Clearly, few if any people who cast ballots in the races for governor in New Jersey or Virginia or for mayor in New York City can have had the agreement on their minds. The voting turned largely on local issues like crime and taxes.

But the results -- the defeat of Democrats in the three most publicized contests, after three other major defeats earlier this year -- may still make it harder for Mr. Clinton to gain a Congressional victory for the trade accord on Nov. 17, because they make him look weak when he needs to look strong.

The White House acknowledges that if the vote were taken now, Mr. Clinton would lose. With 217 votes needed to block the agreement in the House, because there is one vacancy, its opponents already have about 200. If he is to prevail, Mr. Clinton must somehow win the backing of a large majority of the 60 to 65 officially undecided Democrats, many of whom fear reprisal from their constituents if they go along with him. Fears Called Overblown

Stanley Greenberg, Mr. Clinton's pollster, insisted such fears were overblown. Dispatched to Capitol Hill today, he argued that the President would have been strengthened by victories on Tuesday, had they come, but had not been hurt by the losses.

"The public remains tentative, undecided and genuinely conflicted on this issue," Mr. Greenberg said he told worried House Democrats. "Except for a few districts, this is not an issue that has much recrimination in it."

But his presentation was reportedly greeted with some derision, especially from Democratic opponents of the trade accord like Representatives David E. Bonior of Michigan and David R. Obey of Wisconsin, and nose-counters said he made no converts. One skeptic said the President had not been hurt much, but only because his persuasive powers had been damaged by mishaps to his Presidency long before the votes were counted on Tuesday night.

To persuade legislators in a situation like this, a President can appeal to party loyalty, which is weak in general these days and unusually weak on the accord; he can promise things, such as Federal projects or appointments, or threaten to withhold them, and he can provide protection. Vote with me, he can say, and we will win. If they go after you back home, I'll come into your state and help you recover.

But Mr. Clinton helped Mayor David N. Dinkins of New York and Gov. Jim Florio of New Jersey, and they lost anyway. He showed no clout. Looking After No. 1

"What do these returns show me?" a Democrat on Capitol Hill asked, after exacting a promise of anonymity."They show me that I had better look after old No. 1. Maybe by next year, Bill Clinton will be strong enough to help me survive, but he isn't right now, and I can't afford to bet on the come.

"I still haven't decided how to vote on Nafta, but I know my people at home don't like it, and I find Florio's loss particularly threatening."

There is a certain irony in that, of course, because Governor Florio is one of the strongest opponents of the trade agreement in either party. But until he lost, he had seemed to professional politicians to be the pre-eminent symbol of the ability of officeholders to take a highly unpopular economic stance (in his case increasing state taxes) and survive.

Mr. Bonior took a somewhat different tack. One of the lessons of the voting, he said, was that "people don't like their leaders much."

"The Administration is trying to sell Nafta with big names -- former Presidents, secretaries of state, Lee Iacocca, people like that," Mr. Bonior said. "I think the public has pretty well had it with that kind of elitism, and tends to think if guys like that are for it, it must be bad for them."

But he and others conceded that it was impossible to say how large the election returns would loom when the final decisions are made or how many votes would be swayed. Two factors make Mr. Clinton's task more difficult: he cannot afford to lose many more Democratic votes in the House, and at least eight of the swing Democrats come from the three states where the Republicans scored big victories on Tuesday. Presidential Weapons at Hand

The President still has weapons to use. In addition to cutting deals, he can argue that after the the electoral setbacks they have suffered, the Democrats cannot afford to hand a defeat to their President on his major proposal of this autumn. And he can argue that a defeat would cripple him in his meetings with Chinese and other Asian leaders in Seattle in late November, a few days after the vote.

Peter Hart, another leading Democratic pollster, scoffed at suggestions that the election results had doomed the trade accord. But he said they showed how important jobs are to voters. It is therefore all the more important, he said, for the Administration to make the case that the agreement is a job-builder and not a job-destroyer, not even in the short term, for the vast majority.

That argument has not been driven home yet, Mr. Hart said, and George Stephanopoulos, one of the President's closest advisers, agreed with him.

"What we have to do in the time that's left is convince people that standing pat is the most dangerous course," he said. "Look at Tuesday. The most passive candidate, Mary Sue Terry in Virginia, lost the worst."